PHYS111: Does it make a difference if labs are virtual or hands-on?
In Fall 2013, Trinity purchased new equipment for hands-on experimentation in PHYS111. Dr.
Uzi Awret used these in conjunction with virtual labs (PHET Interactive Simulations,
http://phet.colorado.edu/). Assessment targeted whether these hands-on pieces of equipment
enhanced student learning and retention.
Description
At the final exam in Fall 2013, all 22 students in the course answered questions on four different
topics from the course (see Appendix). Dr. Awret taught two topics with hands-on
experimentation, and two without; all four topics had associated virtual labs.
For each topic there were three questions aimed at students’ perception of their own
understanding, the usefulness of virtual labs, and the usefulness of hands-on experimentation.
Rating scale was 1-5, with 5 corresponding to strong agreement in understanding and
usefulness. For the two topics that lacked hands-on experimentation, Dr. Awret asked students
whether they wished there had been a hands-on component. The last question for each topic
was a multiple-choice “test” question aimed at assessing student learning.
The same survey was administered in Fall 2014 to 10 students, following an intervention
described in the “Follow-up” section below.
Fall 2013 Results
Surveys in Fall 2013 showed no compelling evidence that the addition of hands-on
experimentation helped student learning (bottom row in Table 1), or student perception of their
own learning (top three rows of Table 1). Students valued virtual experiments more than handson components for three out of four topics. Few students thought that additional opportunities
for hands-on experience would have been useful; out of 22 students, only 3 for energy and 4 out
of 22 for ramps indicated strong agreement with the idea that hands-on experiments would have
improved their understanding (score of 5).
Topic:
Student
ratings
(1-5)
Test
question
Own learning
Virtual experiments
Hands-on experiments
Provided answer
Answer correct
Circular
motion
4.2
3.9
4.2
64%
50%
Projectile
motion
4.0
4.0
3.6
64%
57%
Ramps
Energy
4.1
4.3
3.8
64%
86%
4.3
4.0
3.7
68%
20%
Table 1. Fall 2013 survey results. Grey columns are for topics taught with both virtual labs and hands-on
experimental equipment; white columns for topics taught only with virtual labs. For each topic, students rated their
own perception of mastering the material (own learning) and the utility of virtual or hands-on experiments, with a 5
corresponding to strong feelings of understanding or utility.
While results from this study are not comprehensive and lack a comparison group who did not
receive instruction with hands-on experimentation for circular motion or projectile motion, they
are not inconsistent with research in the educational literature that show virtual labs to be as
effective as hands-on experimentation (Hawkins and Phelps 2013, 516-523; Corter et al. 2007).
Another shortcoming is that the test question for energy differs from the other two, in that it is
not a predictor of motion. In spite of this shortcoming, the same questions were used in Fall
2014, to determine whether measures to change laboratory exercises with hands-on
experimentation affect learning outcomes and student perceptions.
Fall 2014 Follow-up and Results
Educational literature that shows some advantage from hands-on learning cite that (1) hands-on
labs allow for unexpected results that make students question their understanding (Ma and
Nickerson 2006), and (2) give better opportunities for student interactions that inform the “planexperiment-analyze” process (Corter et al. 2007). Given these strengths in hands-on
experimentation, students will have newly-designed Circular Motion and Projectile Motion
hands-on laboratory exercises that include (1) potential for unexpected results, and (2) structure
that requires student interaction.
Results from Fall 2014 (Table 2) came from a smaller class, with only 10 surveys administered.
A glitch in the survey was that students were not given a hands-on laboratory for Circular
Motion, yet the survey assumed that they did. Still, results below do not indicate a strong
advantage in understanding or student perception of their own learning for the one topic that
involved a hands-on exercise, projectile motion. Both years showed a lack of correlation
between student perception of their own learning and the ability to answer a question on the
same topic correctly.
An interesting difference in 2014 was that proportionally more students indicated strong
preference for hands-on activities. Out of 10 students, 3 strongly agreed that hands-on
exercises would have helped their learning on the two topics that lacked hands-on exercises.
Because some students do appear to prefer hands-on experimentation strongly, and because
the literature suggests that it has advantages, Physics plans to continue using both virtual and
hands-on laboratory exercises in the future.
Topic:
Student
ratings
(1-5)
Test
question
Own learning
Virtual experiments
Hands-on experiments
Provided answer
Answer correct
Circular
motion
3.2
3.1
90%
67%
Projectile
motion
3.6
3.2
3.3
80%
25%
Ramps
Energy
3.7
3.5
3.8
80%
88%
4.0
3.2
4.0
80%
38%
Fall 2014 survey results. Grey columns are for topics taught with both virtual labs and hands-on experimental
equipment; white columns for topics taught only with virtual labs. For each topic, students rated their own perception
of mastering the material (own learning) and the utility of virtual or hands-on experiments, with a 5 corresponding to
strong feelings of understanding or utility.
REFERENCES
Corter, James E., Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Sven K. Esche, Constantin Chassapis, Seongah Im, and Jing Ma.
2007. Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. Acm
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 14 (2) (AUG).
Hawkins, Ian, and Amy J. Phelps. 2013. Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: Which is more
effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice 14 (4): 516-23.
Ma, Jing, and Jeffrey V. Nickerson. 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative
literature review. Acm Computing Surveys 38 (3): 7.
APPENDIX
PHYSICS 111
End-of-semester survey
Full credit will be given for giving
honest and complete answers for all
of the questions below.
This semester I learned how to solve
problems involving circular motion.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Hands-on experiments with the flying pig
were helpful for understanding
and gaining intuition about
circular motion.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Virtual labs were helpful for
understanding and gaining intuition about
circular motion.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Answer the following by selecting the best choice, a-d.
A cat sits on a Merry-go-round at a distance of 3 meters from the axis of rotation. How fast would it have to spin
for the cat to fly off the Merry-go-round if the coefficient of static friction is 0.2?
a) Fast enough for the centrifugal force to exceed the static friction force.
b) Fast enough for the coefficient of friction to equal the angular velocity.
c) Slow enough not to wake the cat.
d) The cat is not going to fly off no matter the speed of rotation of the Merry-go-round.
This semester I learned how to solve
problems involving ramps.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
The PHET virtual lab about ramps was
helpful for my understanding of ramps.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
I wish there had also been a hands-on lab
exercise to explore ramps.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Answer the following by selecting the best choice, a-d.
A 2 kg mass slides down a ramp with an angle of  = 30 degrees, and a coefficient of kinetic friction 0.25. How
far down the ramp would it reach after 3 seconds?
a) The mass is not going to move.
b) Not enough information to tell.
c) It will slide with an acceleration that depends on the angle , the kinetic coefficient of friction and g.
d) It will move with constant velocity.
This semester I learned how to solve
problems involving energy.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
A hands-on lab exercise to explore
energy would have increased my
understanding and problem solving
ability.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
The PHET virtual lab about energy was
helpful for my understanding of energy.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Answer the following by selecting the best choice, a-d.
A coin is dropped from a building, how would you describe its total energy at any time instant. What is
conserved?
a) Potential energy.
b) Kinetic Energy.
c) Their sum.
d) Neither.
This semester I learned how to solve
problems involving projectile motion.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
The PHET virtual lab about projectile
motion was helpful for my understanding
and problem solving ability.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Hands-on experiments with the ballistic
pendulum was helpful for my
understanding of projectile motion.
1
Disagree
strongly
2
Mostly
disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Mostly
agree
5
Strongly
agree
Answer the following by selecting the best choice, a-d.
A piece of wet clay with mass m1 and velocity v1 strikes another piece of clay at rest in space, and the two
pieces stick together and move at a velocity v2. What is the total momentum before and after the collision? Is it
conserved?
a) Before - m1v1, After - m1v1 + m2v2, Not conserved.
b) Before – 0, After – m2v2, Not conserved.
c) Before – m1v1, After – (m1+m2)v2, Conserved.
d) Before – m1v1 +m2v2, After – m2v2, Conserved.